Cases 281 - 300 of 766

Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia, (13843/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 16/10/2015
Lodged: 27/02/2012
Date of violations: 02/04/2005
Location: Chechnya, Shali
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 2 April 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in two UAZ (“таблетка”) vehicles and a Niva model car and took Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev away. On 14 June 2005 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 46060. The investigation is still pending.

 

Elzhurkayevy v. Russia, (13909/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 16/10/2015
Lodged: 27/02/2012
Date of violations: 03/08/2004
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Pecuniary damage: 12000 €
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 3 August 2004 a group of about thirty armed servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in a VAZ-21010, UAZ vehicles and a Zhiguli model car and took Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev away. On 13 August 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutors’ office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 33066. The investigation is still pending.

 

Askhabayeva v. Russia, (79940/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 07/01/2016
Lodged: 07/12/2012
Date of violations: 18/01/2005
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Pecuniary damage: 10000 €
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 18 January 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicant’s house in an APC, two UAZ vehicles and a Niva car and took Mr Saykhan Isayev away. On 8 June 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44048 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 44004). The investigation is still pending.

 

Shovkhalova v. Russia, (34290/11)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 08/06/2015
Lodged: 26/04/2011
Date of violations: 17/02/2005
Location: Chechnya, Avtury
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 17 February 2005 a group of around twenty armed servicemen arrived at the Mr Adam Sadgayev’s house in a Gazel and UAZ (“таблетка”) vehicles and took him away. On 5 April 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46036. The investigation is still pending.

 

Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia, (32554/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Date of violations: 04/11/2002
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

At about 3 a.m. on 4 November 2002 a group of ten to twelve armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in the village of Goyskoye. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen searched the premises, checked Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev’s passport and took him away to an unknown destination. At the time of the events the applicants’ neighbours saw heavy military vehicles parked on the road near their house. Two days after the abduction, on 6 November 2002, the same military servicemen again arrived at the applicants’ house in an Ural lorry. They thoroughly searched the premises and left. The whereabouts of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants.

 

Tapayeva and Others v. Russia, (24757/18)

Communicated: 22/10/2018
Lodged: 23/05/2018
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Women Rights

Mazepa and Others v. Russia, ( 15086/07)

Judgement date: 17/10/2018
Lodged: 06/04/2007
Date of violations: 07/10/2006
Location: Moscow
Representative: International Protection Centre
Violation: Right to life

The present case regards the killing of the investigative journalist Ms Anna Politkovskaya. The applicants are Anna's relatives, who complain that there was no effective investigation into her assasination, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention. Anna was killed in the elevator of the house, where she lived. The investigation, which lasted since 2006 concluded with the identification and the further conviction of five men, who were directly involved into the murder. However, the applicants complained, that the authorities failed to identify the persons, who had commissioned and financed the crime. First of all, the Court underlined, that in cases where the victim of a killing is a journalist, it is crucially important to check a possible connection of the crime to the journalist’s professional activity. Moreover, the Court noticed, that the investigation into a contract killing cannot be considered adequate in the absence of genuine and serious investigative efforts taken with the view to identifying the intellectual author of the crime, that is, the person or people who commissioned the assassination. Finally, the Court heldthat there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural limb.

 

Makhloyev v. Russia, (66320/09)

Judgement date: 16/10/2018
Lodged: 17/12/2009
Date of violations: 29/10/2009
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

The Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. As to the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of it on its merits (see Saidova v. Russia, no. 51432/09, § 85, 1 August 2013; Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 18407/10, § 89, 19 December 2013; and Ibragim Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 18011/12, § 71, 21 June 2016).

 

Tsakoyev and Tsakoyeva v. Russia, (16397/07)

Judgement date: 02/10/2018
Communicated: 16/06/2009
Lodged: 09/04/2007
Date of violations: 27/09/2004
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria, Nalchik
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Torture

On 27 September 2004 Rasul Tsakoyev was detained and taken to the Organized Crime Unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria (OCU) in Nalchik. Between 27 and 29 September he was repeatedly tortured by OCU officers who tried to force him to confess to participation in an illegal armed group. The officers beat him with rubber truncheons, burned cigarettes against his body, put needles under his nails and tortured him with electric shocks. At about 8 p.m. on 29 September Rasul was brought home in a very bad shape. His relatives immediately called for an ambulance and he was taken to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with multiple serious injuries. On 4 October 2004 Rasul died in the hospital.

 

Khashagulgovy v. Russia, (73006/17)

Communicated: 06/09/2018
Lodged: 28/09/2017
Date of violations: 15/02/2013
Location: North Ossetia, Vladikavkaz
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to life

The applicants of the present case are the brother and the son of Sultan-Girey Khashagulgov, who was known as a local community activist in opposition to the local authorities. In 2013 there was a criminal case opened in connection with the attempt of Mr. Khashagulgov on the life of a law-enforcement officer. On 8 February 2013 the brother of Sultan-Girey was detained by the police and taken to the temporary detention centre in Vladikavkaz. There he was tortured in order to make him give incriminating evidence against his brother. On 13 February 2013 a group of law enforcement agents arrived at the applicants’ house and searched the premises. During the search, while Sultan was inside the house, an explosion occurred. It is unclear whether he was wounded during the explosion or by the officers who conducted the search, as well as what degree of injuries he had sustained and whether any medical assistance had been provided to him on the spot or later on. Further he was taken to the same police department where his brother was held. According to the Sultan’s brother, while in detention, he heard his brother being tortured and screaming from pain. Two days later Sultan died in detention. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents used unjustified lethal force against their relative and that the domestic authorities failed to investigate the incident. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that State agents ill-treated the first applicant (Sultan’s brother) and that no proper investigation into the matter has been carried out.

 

Abuyevа Marusa v. Russia, (63329/14)

Communicated: 06/09/2018
Lodged: 05/09/2014
Date of violations: 04/02/2000
Location: Chechnya, Katyr-Yurt
Representative: Others
Violation: Indiscriminate bombing

The applicant’s son, Ruslan Abuyev died in 2000 as a result of bombing of the Chechen village Katyr-Yurt. The Court examined the episode of bombing on several occasions in the following judgments: Isayeva v. Russia, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia and Abakarova v. Russia. In the Isayeva judgment the Court found violations of Article 2 on the account of the State’s failure to protect the right to life and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the military operation. In 2010 the Court delivered its judgment in Abuyeva and Others,  finding that, as in Isayeva, that the planning and execution of the airstrike had been carried out in violation of Article 2 of the Convention and that all the major flaws of the investigation into the military operation indicated in Isayeva had persisted throughout the second round of criminal investigations into the matter, which ended in 2007. In 2015 the Court further examined the same situation in the judgment it delivered in the case of Abakarova, where the applicant complained of the same airstrike and of the continuing failure of the authorities to investigate the matter effectively. As regards the investigation, the Court found that none of the issues raised in the two previous cases had been resolved by the domestic authorities. In April 2017 the Committee of Ministers published its 10th annual report (for 2016) concerning the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It stated that there was no progress in the investigation. In the present application the applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the bombing in Katyr-Yurt. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains of lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.

 

Alikhanov and Others v. Russia, (17054/06)

Judgement date: 28/08/2018
Communicated: 07/04/2009
Lodged: 05/04/2006
Date of violations: 23/12/2004
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance
Extra-judicial execution

In the evening on 23 December 2004, Amrikhan Alikhanov was driving to the village of Kaspiysk, Dagestan. At transport police check point “Mars-20” on the outskirts of Makhachkala, his car was stopped by several men in police uniform and masks. They put Amrikhan into one of their cars before driving away. According to police officers serving at the check point, the men had introduced themselves as officers of the Organized Crime Unit. Amrikhan has not been seen since. In April 2005 six bodies bearing signs of torture were discovered in a forest near the village of Zamay-Yurt, Chechnya and immediately buried. Amrikhan's clothes were found close to the discovery site. They were bloodied and pierced with bullet holes.

 

Abdulkadyrov and Dakhtayev v. Russia, (35061/04)

Judgement date: 10/07/2018
Lodged: 08/09/2004
Date of violations: 25/09/2002
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: International Protection Centre
Violation: Torture

On 25 and 19 September 2002 respectively the applicants were arrested in Grozny in the Chechen Republic and taken to the temporary detention. For several days they remained without legal assistance. Their families were unaware of their whereabouts. The applicants submitted that during those days they were repeatedly ill-treated and forced into confessing to being members of an illegal armed group in Grozny, and to the murders of several people, including police officers and military servicemen. Following the applicants’ conviction, in September 2004 their families requested to allocate them to penal facilities in regions adjacent to their home region, the Chechen Republic. Nevertheless, the first applicant was allocated to a strict-regime correctional colony in the Republic of Komi, (3,000 kilometres from the Chechen Republic) and the second applicant was first allocated to a strict regime correctional colony in the Omsk Region (3,400 kilometres from the Chechen Republic) and then transferred to Murmansk region ( 3,700 km from the Chechen Republic). The Court found violations of several rights: a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that the applicants were subjected to torture, and under its procedural limb on account of the lack of an effective investigation into their allegations; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (as the convictions were based on the confessions that the applicants had made under duress); and a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (as the authorities’ decisions to allocate the applicants to remote penal facilities to serve their prison sentences amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their family life).

 

Malika Turayeva v. Russia, (36255/16)

Communicated: 05/07/2018
Lodged: 14/06/2016
Date of violations: 20/10/2014
Location: Chechnya, Bamut
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Right to life

Mr. Zila Turyaev (the applicant's husband) was working as a lorry driver at a construction site. On 20 October 2014, whilst he was working on the site, his lorry was blown-up as a result of hitting a mine and he was seriously injured. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where he died shortly after arrival. Although the investigation concluded the involvement of a military servicemen into the accident, as priorly the zone was occupied by a military unit of the Russian Ministry of Defence until 2009, it did not lead to any effective result. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the State violated its positive obligation by failing to clear the construction site of mines and to erect signs indicating its vicinity for the local population. Under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities failed to investigate her husband’s death.

 

Dzhanaraliyev and Others v. Russia, (67947/13; 24632/15; 53248/15)

Judgement date: 14/06/2018
Lodged: 18/10/2013
Date of violations: 22/08/2008
Location: Dagestan
Representative: Others
Violation: Proper medical assistance

The applicants complained principally about the poor conditions of their detention, aggravated by the seriousness of their medical problems and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

 

Gasangusenov v. Russia, (78019/17)

Communicated: 05/06/2018
Lodged: 02/11/2017
Date of violations: 23/08/2016
Location: Dagestan, Goor-Khindakh
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to life

The applicant’s sons Gasangusen and Nabi Gasangusenov were shepherds. The local police was informed of each shepherd working in the area. On 23 August 2016 the two men went to work and did not come back home. The next day the applicant’s wife asked her relative Mr I.M. to go to the pasture and look for her sons. They found the two bodies in less than one km from the village, in three-four metres from the road, in the bushes. The bodies were next to each other; face down, in large black jackets with hoods pulled over the head. Automatic guns were on their backs with gun belts on the necks; army boots and backpacks were lying nearby. According to the applicant, neither the black coats, nor the army boots and the backpacks found at the crime scene belonged to his sons. The criminal case was opened against Gasangusen and Nabi Gasangusenov under Articles 317 and 222 of the Criminal Code (attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer and unlawful turnover of firearms). According to the official statement, on 23 August a special operation to verify operative-search information was being carried out by the representatives of the local Dagestan Federal Security Service and the Dagestan Counterterrorism Centre. The two brothers opened fire at the representatives of the law-enforcement agencies. Notwithstanding several requests of the applicant, no criminal case was opened into the killing of his sons. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his two sons were killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.

 

Salakhbekov and Abukayev and v. Russia, (28368/09; 28636/09)

Judgement date: 29/05/2018
Lodged: 05/05/2009
Date of violations: 24/12/2008
Location: Dagestan, Kizilyurt and Leninaul
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to a fair trial

In 2008 the applicants applied for recalculation of the social benefits they were entitled to as persons who took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. Their claims were granted by domestic courts. The applicants complained that the unlawful extension of the time‑limit for appeal granted by the domestic courts following the defendant authority’s request had resulted in the judgments in their favour being quashed, which consequently constituted a violation of their right to a court. The Court found the violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

Valigabandov v. Russia, (67897/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 22/08/2016
Date of violations: 22/08/2013
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

On 22 August 2013 the applicant's brother, Mr Omar Valibagandov went to work. He first stopped to answer the phone calls and in the evening of the same day he ended in the hospital, being shot in the thigh with a rubber bullet. He was taken to the Karabudakhkent Central Hospital by a group of officers from the FSB and shortly thereafter transferred to the Izberbash hospital handcuffed and under their surveillance. On the premises of the Izberbash hospital a group of about 20-25 police officers waited for the ambulance with the applicant’s brother. In the hospital, during the removal of the bullet, Mr Valigabandov told the doctors that he had been beaten, shot and abducted by the law-enforcement officers. Shortly after he was taken to the police car and driven off. He has gone missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his brother's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Moreover, the applicant complained of the State’s failure to comply with the positive obligation to protect the right to life of his disappeared brother. He additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the brother's disappearance led to a mental suffering. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his brother's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, he had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Pyatimat Ausheva v. Russia, (56941/17)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 17/02/2017
Date of violations: 17/02/2012
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: No representative
Violation: Disappearance

On 17 February 2012 the applicant's son, Mr Rustam Aushev left home to go to Belgium to visit his sister.  He was at the Mineralnye Vody train station, when a group of seven men in civilian clothing approached him, showed him their service identity cards and then forced him in their white Gazel-model minivan. One of the abductors later introduced himself to the train station’s security personnel as Officer L. from the FSB and showed them his service identity card. After that Mr Aushev gone missing. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her son's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the son's disappearance led to a mental suffering. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her son's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Leyla Khamarzovna Muruzheva v. Russia, (62526/15)

Judgement date: 15/05/2018
Communicated: 25/04/2018
Lodged: 11/12/2015
Date of violations: 25/04/2015
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Women Rights

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014 granting her a residence order in respect of her children.

 
Cases 281 - 300 of 766